Template talk:Itembox
Whew I think I'm finally done with this thing. The wikicode was a right PITA. Finally had to use HTML for the tables.--Hav0c 18:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC) : Congratulations, Hav0c. You have my utmost respect Scarbrowtalk 19:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Accesibility I've confirmed from shadowdragon (from the forums) that the itembox template plays nice with screenreaders. That's one worry less. :) --Hav0c 21:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC) New Anchors Good job, Hav0c. The new anchors let us link individual items from other pages seamlessly, and that's good. Only thing I wonder... could it be possible that passing one or two (true/false) optional parameters to the template, the template generated automagically a " " or " " (or, now we're at it, a variable number of equal signs) heading, so items would appear in the TOC? If it's too complicated, we can still insert manual headings for the TOC, leaving the template anchors untouched (only worry, as Young Ned put it, is anchor name duplication) Scarbrowtalk 09:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC) * My primary reason for not wanting to do that is that it would add an 'edit' link above each Itembox. That would really increase the screen area taken up by the template. I'll look into it, and see if I can find an appropriate compromise. --Hav0c 09:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC) ** Ah, I never thought of that when I suggested adding headings. Interesting. Any way of getting the TOC to include the anchors that are not generated by headings? And yes, great job, Havoc! — Young Ned (talk) 10:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC) *** Turns out that it is possible to add in a heading that will be indexed by the ToC, but won't result in the 'edit' option, using style="display:none;" However, this leads to other complications, starting with the fact that html headings don't play nicely with Template:TOClimit. I'm thinking to forcing it to a , with one flag determining if it shows up as a heading or as just an anchor. Suggestions welcome. --Hav0c 11:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC) :::: The way I see it, we won't use the TOCLimit template often. We can simply put up a warning in both templates' doc that it's unwise to combine them. ::::About the , it would be suboptimal to put up a fixed header. If we can't customize the type of header it shows, it would be better to add it manually, since we don't know if we'll want to add an Itembox as a Level 2 header (like in Wrist Armour), a level 3 header (like it should be in Unique Weapons, or even lower level headers. ::::I absolutely agree there must be a flag to determine if it should be just an anchor (like now) or also a heading. Couldn't you add two parameters, one of them saying if it must be a heading, and another one saying what kind of heading it should show? :::: And finally, about the section editing that would allow, I'm not sure of your objections. You say that "That would really increase the screen area taken up by the template", but I'm not sure if that's bad at all. That was the way it was done in the previous wiki, with no objections, like it's now in Unique Weapons. Maybe that's going too far, but maybe a third parameter that would allow the editor to decide on that, if (s)he wants to let the heading show in the page or only in the TOC? ::::Scarbrowtalk 14:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC) ::::: I think that one compromise might be to add in an optional 'heading level' parameter. This would take values from 2-6, depending on the heading level desired. If it is undefined, then there is only an anchor. If there is a consensus on this, I'll add it in. ::::: Now for the 'Edit' links. My primary concern, as I said above, is with the screen real-estate that an 'edit' link above each individual itembox would take up. My primary motivation for making this template was to streamline the way item information is displayed, so that we can show say 4-5 items a page, instead of 2 like the old wiki. However, I don't mind the extra line too much, so I'm willing to go along, if I can find a way to get the edit link to show up without an addtional title before the box. --Hav0c 21:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC) ::::::That compromise seems good to me. Quick and easy, and doesn't modify the template's current way of working. About edit links... I'm not so worried about screen real-state, so what I was saying is that you could let the editor of the page decide to include them or not. In a page like Unique Weapons they would be useful because it's a page about items and nothing more, while in Tarramyre they wouldn't as they are only examples. Scarbrowtalk 22:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Anchors done I've added in the 'HeadingLevel' parameter, as discussed above, and as a bonus, added an automagic anchor by item ID, for use in those cases where 'Name' is not unique.--Hav0c 12:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC) :Excellent work, as always. Congratulations Scarbrowtalk 12:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC) ::Thanks. Let me know if there are any bugs. If not, I'll upgrade Template:Questbox to this format too. --Hav0c 12:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC) :::I don't see any bugs, you can go ahead with what you have in mind Scarbrowtalk 11:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC) New Parameter I've added an optional parameter MarketValue to show the shops valoration of the item's real value, with a link to Item Selling Guide to explain what means the "Real Market Value" (I've still got to migrate that one). Let me know if there are any bugs with it. Seems I'm starting to understand templates a little, at least enough to modify existing ones. Scarbrowtalk 11:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC) : I'd suggest calling it just 'Value', with the link explaining the details. I'll test out the table code for bugs as I get time. --Hav0c 11:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC) :: And why not GoldValue or RealValue? I believe the name has to be self-explanatory, and "Value" could lead to confusion. Or there is some technical advantage in a shorter name?Scarbrowtalk 14:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC) ::: Two reasons. The 'Technical', trivial one, is simply about screen real estate, if the user has a lower screen width. Only slightly more importantly, I feel that 'RealValue' is not much easier to understand than 'Value'. As a compromise, I'd suggest either of the following: :::# Value: 1080 gold :::# Worth 1808 gold ::: In each case, the first word would be a link --Hav0c 04:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC) ::::Ok, Value is fine with me. Proceed with the changes when you want, I'm too exhausted from the images uploading Scarbrowtalk 07:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC) ::::: Done. --09:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC) 'Notes' Parameter I've added in a 'Notes' parameter, so that we can incorporate into the box all other relevant information, instead of having a line of text below the box. --Havoc (talk) 09:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC) : The new parameter is useful, but I think that it should say explicitely "Notes" on some part, although the formatting is quite clear. Also, I would use a grey with more black on it, more intense. It's a little difficult to read right now. Would have changed it myself, but I don't understand what the " " parts mean (literal bars? why not write them directly?) and I don't want to scramble anything. Scarbrowtalk 14:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC) :: I've made the fixes you suggested. The is used to create a |, as you've guessed, in order to differentiate the bars that are used for table formatting in the final page from the bars that are used to separate the parameters passed to #if. --Havoc (talk) 14:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Changes to Req<> parameters A couple questions: * What is the advantage of the new Itembox layout? I found that the former one was simple and easy to use, why change it? I feel the less changes to an already established standard, the better. * How do the numbered parameters ( ,etc ) work? Are they positional? I'm worried that if somebody uses parameters in another order (like putting Desc on the end, or at the beginning), the layout may be broken. * I suppose you changed all pages in which the template was used with requirements? Scarbrowtalk 22:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)